’)
UPDATE:
NY-23: “The first Dem Congressman since before electricity was invented.”
— Jaim
No matter how hard I try. You’re so unpredictable.
Virginia: Creigh Deeds sucked it, hard. Deeds did his damndest to discourage the voters that turned out for Obama last year while McDonnell ran a good campaign. My guess is this election was far more about traditional NoVa gripes about things like traffic in addition to the economy, but it remains to be seen. In 2012, I would still bet on Virginia to go Democratic, however.
New Jersey: This one surprised me, I thought Jersey would pull this out again. But while a Republican win there is a legit good win for them, indications are this was a corruption plus bad economy play again. New Jersey isn’t about to go South Carolina on us. Christie will probably end up like Bob Ehrlich did in Maryland: A republican goofball in a Democratic state that doesn’t much listen to him.
Maine Marriage: This one is still up in the air, but it probably says that at some point we need to go at the gay marriage issue from the federal level, because the states keep going back and forth on it. I don’t see that happening under President Obama or this congress, however. This is a long fight.
NY-23: Oh, snap. TEABAG FAIL. As I write this, Fox is calling it for the Democrat Owens, and from what I read that’s likely to hold up. But for this race to be even close is a big failure for the conservative movement, even more so than for the Republican party. This is a +30% seat they should win easily, but they were so damned concerned about purity control they kicked themselves in the nuts. As I said previously, when Dems were out of power we encouraged Dems to show some gumption but we also knew that in some areas you had to take the stakes of the tent and expand them to their near-breaking point. Thats how parties build majorities. Then you have the latitude to whittle down your ideology.
Hoffman had the support of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Fred Thompson, and the entire Teabag movement. At best he is in a tight race, and a likely loss.
The much vaunted Tea Party movement probably just increased Nancy Pelosi’s power by one.
OVERALL: A setback at the gubernatorial level for Democrats, you always want governors to be the local vanguards of enacting progressive change. I don’t think this is any sort of serious repudiation of President Obama, although the resources he put in backing Corzine makes the slightest of blemishes. The probable loss in Maine is also a pushback on the larger progressive movement, leaving the issue of gay marriage still up in the air (also makes me think the movement should follow the civil rights folks and also work through the courts instead of costly referendums).
NY-23 is egg in the eye of the teabag movement and especially con leaders like Sarah Palin. I do hope that this does not dissuade them from picking off viable Republican candidates squishy RINO moderate Democrat-lite candidates in order to help elect Democrats crush far left Democrat-party ideologues.
Lesson for Dems: Put up candidates with guts. Deeds ran a squish campaign and got squish results. He opposed cap and trade and said he would opt out of the public option. Way to suppress the base vote, dude. Also, I love negative ads more than most, but I don’t remember any from him I love negative ads more than most, but I don’t remember any positive ads from him*. Try that.
*(I miswrote this sentence, initially. I think Deeds did not run enough positive ads about himself to balance out the warranted negative ads vs. McDonnell)
“I don’t think this is any sort of serious repudiation of President Obama”
Good luck getting any agreement from your “biggest fans” here. How good is all of this news for John McCain?
Sadly, I disagree with you on the impact of NJ- it’s one of the most powerful governor’s offices in America and Christie will likewise have a lot of authority on the state. However, given the bizarre obsession right-wingers have with pretending NJ isn’t a solid blue state overall, the idea that they’re going to get someone being heavily conservative in a state with a legislature still in Democratic hands is nil. And the idea that Christie would honestly try to opt-out of a public option, in a state with one of the highest medical care concerns among the populace, is just laughable.
I think we mostly agree. Christie won’t have much wiggle room in a strong blue state like NJ. Ehrlich ran into a similar problem here in Maryland. NJ isn’t as hippie as us, but its close.
Given his shady practices as US Attorney, that sow Cbristie will probably get indicted. Even Torricelli couldn’t do that.
A good lesson for the tea-birthers.
You aren’t ready for prime time, kids. You should have left Scozzafava alone to do her thing, and it would have been a safe seat pickup.
This is really embarrassing for the entire GOP machine.
Our “liberal” media is already playing it as GOP RULES.
Even as they lose NJ-23.
oh, and CA.
Can’t stop laughing my ass off over NY-23. The first Dem Congressman since before electricity was invented.
Seriously, don’t stop you bigots and birthers and teabaggers. More Limbaugh. More Beck. More Palin, dear god please more Palin.
2012 is looking to be a landslide of Reagan vs. Mondale proportions.
Try 16 years, Jaim.
1993, was the last time a Democrat held the seat.
Don’t let facts get in the way of your repeating horseshit, though.
Which are you Jaim? Dupe or liar?
Were the counties included in the 23rd the same in 1993 as today?
Before you call people names, Dennis, you might like to find out.
If they weren’t, then an comparison prior to the latest change, by Dennis or Jaim would be bogus, wouldn’t it?
Be fair. Cast a pox on both houses.
No Sean. The counties haven’t moved. They’re right where they’ve been for the last 140 years. Sometimes the district they’re in has one number, sometimes another. But the district number doesn’t change the representation the voters of these counties have chosen over the years.
Cute, Q, but beside the point and you know it.
Have the boundaries of the district, whatever it’s number, changed?
I hope those blue dogs are watching and rethinking their stance on the public option and going against their constituents, and take heed of the loss Deeds went though.
If we feel that you don’t have our back, we won’t have your back.
Losing Gay Marriage in Maine–assuming it’s lost–really hurts (and if it’s not lost, it’s still too close for my liking). I really believed the independent streak in Maine would win the day for the Good Guys. Damn.
Doofus Hoffman losing feels real good. What an awful bunch of people he had pulling for him. And what an awful person. Good riddance.
Deeds was not inspiring and did all he could to turn me off, but still preferable to a Pat Robertson Republican. That’s unfortunate.
New Jersey is less unfortunate, but still too bad.
I hear a bit of whistling going by the graveyard. A shame It wasn’t 3 for 3.
Most telling comment in Ollie’s lead in, “but it probably says that at some point we need to go at the gay marriage issue from the federal level, because the states keep going back and forth on it.”
LOL,translated it doesn’t matter what the people want we need to cram our radical ideology down their throats. It goes to show that sometimes it’s best to never give an inch since incrementalism can get us to a place where we discuss two men living together as man and wife as a matter of civil rights instead of being preposterous.
Second most telling comment by Ollie “I love negative ads more than most, but I don’t remember any from him”
The politics of personal destruction, charming. Funny how he doen’t seem to feel that way when it’s used against Democrats. Intellectual honesty is in rather short supply here.
Maybe it’s past time to tear Obama down, Just pick pick pick away at his many transgressions and missteps. As Alinsky teaches us freeze the moment and then ridicule. Easy to do with his inexperience showing more and more coupled with his questionable associations. Nothing but negativity until his image is so tarnished he goes down a failure. LOL That’s taking Oliver’s wish to it’s logical conclusion.
it doesn’t matter what the people want we need to cram our radical ideology down their throats
Yes, like the radical civil rights agenda. If we left it to the south, we’d probably still have Jim Crow.
Funny how he doen’t seem to feel that way when it’s used against Democrats.
Actually I miswrote that. I was actually taking Deeds to task for not running enough positive ads. But go ahead and take that ball and run down the field.
ALSO: Alinsky! ACORN! Something!
Maybe it’s past time to tear Obama down
You guys have been trying to do that since about 2007.
No, it doesn’t matter what “the people” want when it comes to denying basic civil rights to your fellow Americans.
…it’s best to never give an inch since incrementalism can get us to a place where we discuss two men living together as man and wife as a matter of civil rights instead of being preposterous.
Incrementalism, nothing. The world is just going to blaze right by your dumb ass, Amused. You’ll wake up one morning clinging desperately to your inch and you’ll have no idea how it happened.
No doubt AO hears some whistling past the graveyard – it’s filled with Republicans.
Maybe it’s past time to tear Obama down, Just pick pick pick away at his many transgressions and missteps.
Good plan. When are you guys going to get started?
Living in NJ, one would think that voters of this state would remember the effects of the last “Christy” governor: Christy Todd Witless. Wonder if fatso will be dumb enough to try to privatize the DMV again, as Witless did (which was a disaster, cost the state millions, and wasn’t fixed until it was re-public-ized). And yeah, my currently unemployed (and therefore health-care-less) friend who was here watching the HBO doc on the Obama campaign 2nite was none too happy about a Governor who might opt out of a health care public plan. As you say, Oliver, hopefully the state legislature would kick Christie hard in the ballsack over that.
Short version: Everybody gets a reason to cry tonight.
You forgot about the CA 10 election. Looks like Harmer is going to go down in flames, which was predictable, considering that the place tilts liberal to start, and it was a Dem seat. Still, you’d think that there was no election going on for all the love we got. Garamendi will do a good job in CA 10, and I like him better than Tauscher, honestly.
The Maine thing is bad, but we got it in once, it can be done again.
“I hear a bit of whistling going by the graveyard.”
First Democrat congressman in 120 years? You guys are masters of self-deception.
“Maybe it’s past time to tear Obama down, Just pick pick pick away at his many transgressions and missteps. As Alinsky teaches us freeze the moment and then ridicule.”
Obama is twice as popular as Bush was. And as we move out of the Bush Recession his numbers will go up.
Face it Republicans: You and your party are the biggest jokes in America right now.
Let the civil war commence! I made popcorn for everybody!
I’d like to thank the teabaggers, for adding another Democrat to Congress (in a district that hasn’t elected one since 1870, lol).
If I’m not mistaken, the state where 9/11 took place now has exactly one Republican house member out of about twenty-five or so.
Two, actually. One’s never made a statement about anything – the other is gasbag Peter King.
Palin’s pick performs poorly
She’s basically the kiss of death as an endorsement, along with Beck.
What a joke.
Which means she obviously needs to make MORE appearances! Obviously America doesn’t know her quite well enough!
No doubt the Obama admisnistration is rocked to core by these devastating losses – I guess we can scrap those plans for FEMA camps in NJ and Virginia.
I usually ignore gub elections.
So two liberal Republicans won, and conservatives teabag away an election in a dark red Congressional district.
Yes, it’s obviously a resurgence for conservatives.
Basically
Obama’s doomed.
And no doubt this is all excellent news for John McCain (much like any other news…good or bad…is)
Ha you watch FOX, that’s funny.
Kausfiles Election 2009: Some Winners, Losers…..
Rasmussen Nails the New Jersey Race.
Ouch.
Christie? Oh that’s good and all and imma let you finish but Bill Owens pulled out one of the biggest political upsets of all times.
Corzine outspent Christie by a margin of 5-1. Obama went there five times to campaign for him. Rasmussen’s accuracy in NJ polling for Governor proves you guys need to think twice before just arbitrarily blasting his poll results out of hand because he gives interviews on Fox News. And he has Obama’s approval now at 46%.
19-20 point blowout win in Virginia for Gov and straight down the line to Lt Gov and AG sends a strong message to red state congressmen to think twice about their upcoming health care vote.
Bottom line, Obamacare took a big punch in the gut last night.
As to NY-23, read and learn, Chow Shark…
Five Reasons NY-23 Doesn’t Tell Us Anything
Keep your chin up, though.
Wow, a right-wing pundit says that teabagging away a seat doesn’t matter. Obama should just resign now!
And EL, you guys said all last spring and all summer that the tea parties and the town hall protesters were a joke and they were all just a bunch of redneck racist idiots. This proves the overall punditry of the chatterers here to be quite inaccurate in their political assessments. Independent moves toward the conservatives running for governor in both states were overwhelming.
Wake up call for the nutroots. They won’t wake up, though. They’ll just keep bashing the tea-partiers and never admit that independents are in complete agreement with them. Lib video bloggers will just keep hunting out the crazy rednecks that are attracted to tea party protests with their video cameras and post it to their blogs and portray the whole crowd as being just like just like that guy they have on tape. And it will just piss off the independents more and more.
Dems thought they had a mandate to do anything they wanted and made the mistake of admitting they needed to take full advantage of the crisis while they could- then they proceeded to overstep their bounds.
Virginia and New Jersey just gave Obama, Pelosi and Reid the Heisman last night.
Lulz. Who was the tea party candidate in the NJ race and how did he do? Hint: He considers Glenn Beck his mentor.
Funny, Marco, the Lulz is reading you guys after the butt-kicking now saying Corzine was a crappy, corrupt politician and that’s why he lost, so no biggie.
Then why were you all hoping for and predicting a win and saying he would pull it out? Corruption okay with you? I know it’s run of the mill politics in NJ and being corrupt for a Dem is a plus for re-election, but why were you in favor of a politician you admit was corrupt?
More importantly, why was Obama in favor of it such that he stumped so hard for him there?
Lulz, Indeed.
Hey, I was surprised Corzine didn’t pull it off, but your tea bagger candidate fucking lost and you know it. Hardly a vindication for the Kajllions who marched on DC on 9/12. I think that was the honest to God crowd number floated by your brethren.
Are we going to play which party has the most corrupt politicians now or are you just going to take a whiff of reality and admit the Palin/Beck party candidate lost?
Marco,
Were you of voting age or even interested in politics when the nutroots put all their backing behind Ned Lamont in Connecticut in 2006? I know that was a long time ago, but do you remember how all the lib bloggers banded together to get him the primary win over Lieberman? After he lost, do you think the nutroots just gave up and said that they got their butts kicked and just licked their wounds? Do you even think any of them considered that a defeat?
Well, Hoffman’s situation wasn’t even remotely close to what happened in NY-23, not in any way, shape or form; not monetarily and not in national party politics. It was nothing more than a test case from which to learn and build from.
Considering that those “nutroots” (as you like to call them) have basically been proven right about every thing they said about Lieberman (He’ll stab us in the back on key votes out of spite – see “filibuster the public option”), and considering that Holy Joe is about as popular in CT as head lice today,and considering the likelihood that Joe will just run as a Republican next time… um, no.
Anyway, considering comparisons between NY-23 and LIEberman/Lamon…. what Atrios said.
Look, I hope you guys keep tea bagging the nation. Have another big march on Washington . Show up for Michelle’s Bachman’s dink fest tomorrow. I certainly don’t want you to give up. I want you to parade as many Hoffmans -like candidates out as humanly possible. Get Sarah Palin behind them. Get Glenn Beck to endorse their candidacy.
When is the last time A democrat won in NJ-23, by the way?
More success to you and yours.
Or as the “other” Dennis wrote at Red State:
In NY-23, Conservatives Win
Posted by Erick Erickson
The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.
This is a huge win for conservatives.
You do know that the Republicans that won in VA and NJ have no say in the vote in Congress about Health care reform, but the Democrat that won the House seat in NY-23 does?
You that Republicans lost a seat in Congress while Democrats gained a seat?
You know that right, Dennis? RIGHT?
cj-
I’m guessing you didn’t know that the Democrat that won campaigned against the public option.
I’m guessing you also didn’t know Markos Moulitsos of Daily Kos originally endorsed Scozzafava, the Republican, and not the Democrat- so asking you if you knew why he endorsed her would be equally pointless.
Whatever incremental help Owens is going to help Pelosi on health care will be far less than the hurt imparted on her by the sudden realization by Democrats in red states of the significance of a 19 point defeat by the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia and the 5 point loss by the incumbent Democratic governor in the very blue state of New Jersey.
And here’s an interesting little tidbit for you, cj:
White House today vs. Rahm in 2005
Seems Rahm was quite certain Governor wins for Kaine and Corzine then in NJ and VA were huge for their potential impact for the next year.
Funny that, huh?
My comment was towards your comment “Obamacare took a big punch in the gut last night.” because of the wins in VA and NJ, which I don’t see how they have anything to do with health care reform being passed in Congress.
Also read this…. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/4/800636/-Yesterdays-Vote:-Two-More-Votes-for-Healthcare-Reform
He might or might not vote for a public option there is still hope.
Thanks, Dennis. Every once in a while it’s good to be reminded what a steaming pile of stupid Mickey Kaus is.
Sure thing, Wilbur. Point is, he’s right about Rasmussen.
When there is a national election which the people can make an up-or-down vote regarding HCR, then you’ll have a point. Rasmussen simply has no “do or die” moment on those polls and thus nothing tangible riding on their accuracy.
Could be, but Dennis, even you have been right about things occasionally.
Rasmussen got the margin for Obama right in last year’s election, too. I’m not aware of anything he’s gotten all wrong, aside from, according to the groupthink here, the fact that he gives interviews to Fox.
Oh, and Wilbur, just remember that next time you get on your high horse about cherry-picking polls and not using the RCP average of the last ten polls going back two months, mm-kay?
So if a poll is right once, it is permissible to cherry-pick it on a different topic later?
As always, Dennis, thanks for the lesson in fair and balanced.
And I was right; Garamendi won CA-10 by about 16 points. Now, the interesting thing will be who Gov. Action Hero will pick to replace him. My suspicion is, since he really doesn’t care, will pick a conservative and try to force him through the legislature. The legislature will hate this pick, and yet another fight will break out. That’s a theory, based on the fact that Arnold is quite a dick, and that since he won’t be running next time, he really doesn’t have much to lose for it. I suspect he will enjoy trying to twist the knife in while going down as a patently awful experiment in governance.
Well Oliver,
If you miswrote that then you’re a better person than I gave you credit for when I read what you had originally written.
Interesting that you equate what is basically subsizing sodomy with slavery as a civil rights matter. It bring into focus the question of what is the purpose and function of marriage. Looking back historically, marriage is not about entitling the person you fuck most frequently with a pension. It is hard to see what civil right is being jeopardized by preserving marriage in the form that it has always existed as.
Interesting that you equate what is basically subsizing sodomy with slavery as a civil rights matter.
Fuck you, AO. That was perhaps the most obnoxious thing you have ever posted on OW’s blog, which is saying quite a bit.
Looking back historically, marriage is not about entitling the person you fuck most frequently with a pension. It is hard to see what civil right is being jeopardized by preserving marriage in the form that it has always existed as.
No, historically it has been about the ownership of women and the recognition of legal heirs for the transfer of property (and all of the rights that entails). And don’t feed us that BS about marriage being about procreation and providing stable homes for children, unless you are willing to (1) deny the right to marry to anyone who is infertile or past child bearing years, and (b) forbid divorce among couples with children. Not to mention the existence of thousands of gay and lesbian families which aren’t recognized under your antiquated, patrician definition of marriage.
What we are talking about are the modern legal privileges that go along with marriage (which I think you know perfectly well, and just choose to ignore). And, perhaps even more importantly, the recognition by society that one’s loving, committed relationship is just as valid and just as worthy one’s neighbors.
Jeez, you are a piece of work.
The world is so passing you by, Amused.
“Keep your chin up, though.
That’s a young boy you got a pic of there that you’re snickering about a sex act depicting placing your ball sack in someone’s mouth, ya know, Paul_D.
Kinda sick and perverted of you if you want to know the truth.
NAMBLA much? If so, I just hope your neighbor’s know the score with you.
Ahem–YOU guys decided to coin yourselves “teabaggers” (obviously clueless as to what the term really meant).
Sorry Dennis–you can’t blame Obama or “youse evul leftists”
You and Paul_D aren’t ‘clueless’ as to what it meant. So you snicker over it with a picture of a little boy. Pretty sick.
It’s so much fun whenour wingnut trolls pretend to be all offended and everything! So precious!
Your feet must get tired from all the times they’ve been shot.
Paul_D,
You don’t have a couple big tents in your back yard and a tall fence all around the perimeter, do you?
You might want to get rid of that pic and any other pervert pics you have stored on your hard drive, too. Just fyi.
I’m not as surprised in the results as I am for the NY-23 election.
24 hours ago, the talking heads on the idiot box would have you believe that a Fox News endorsement was the ish.
NJ is such a blue state that despite the fact that Corzine has been unpopular with the people of NJ since at least 2007, he still managed to stay somewhat competitive, and Deeds has his ass handed to him after running away from the public option, and only reaches out to Obama at the end when he realizes he’s losing badly.
Meanwhile the teabagging RINO purge ensures a Republican congressional seat flips to the Democrats. Yeah, the baggers are on a roll alright – keep up the good work.
“you guys said all last spring and all summer that the tea parties and the town hall protesters were a joke and they were all just a bunch of redneck racist idiots”
Sarah Palin endorsed her first candiate, and he got his ass beat. Glenn Beck. Fred Thompshon. A shit-ton of other racist wing-nuts like yourself.
And you got beat, yet again.
Dude, you call yourselves “teabaggers.” No wonder you lost, and will continue to lose.
But thanks for amusing me!
“Which are you Jaim? Dupe or liar?”
I’m the guy who can’t top laughing at the little cowardly bitch named Dennis.
Good times!
Where’s your 120 years figure coming from if a Dem held the seat last in 1993, Jaim? I know it’s not your ass this time. What far left fringe blog did you lift that from without checking for accuracy…. in which you let Oliver repeat it directly from you and put it on his blog post?
Which is it? Are you a liar or a dupe?
Either way you own Oliver an apology and clarification.
“Where’s your 120 years figure coming from if a Dem held the seat last in 1993, Jaim? ”
Umm…. the the same site you just linked to.
“The 23rd had historically been one of the more Republican districts in the Northeast. The seat had been in Republican hands since 1873, and some portions of the district–including the largest city, Watertown–hadn’t been represented by a Democrat since 1851, when the Whig Party still existed.”
The only apology owed here is from Dennic’s high school civics teacher, who apparently never taught him what redistricting was. Cut to Dennics’ post-humiliation subject changing in 3,2,1…
Nope, he’ll just run away with his tail between his legs instead.
Shamelessly stolen from Washington Monthly…something the tea-birthers should think about if they have the capacity to plan long term…
“New York has 29 congressional districts. As of today, the state is represented by 27 Democrats. As recently as a few years ago, Dems had “only” 21 seats from New York.
What’s more, New England, made up of six states, has 22 congressional districts. Currently, the region is represented by 22 Democrats.
So, north of the Pennsylvania border, there 51 congressional districts representing 34 million people. Republicans have a whopping two seats.”
But somehow, this is good news for conservatives…(much laughter)
They’re storming back!!!
Watch out, liebruls!
Dennis, in several of your comments here you are starting to stray in to some incredibly personal attacks. Although I find it telling I also think that this is exactly the kind of thing that Oliver warned everyone about not doing.
Looking back historically, marriage is not about entitling the person you fuck most frequently with a pension.
Translation: “Queerosexuals are incapable of feeling love.”
Take that bone out of your nose Dennis.
Aw, shit, Jaim. And here I was getting a kick out of Michael Over Here trying pretend he thinks I’m the only one getting away with personal attacks and that I instigate them all.
Couldn’t you at least have said that on another thread away from MOH’s comment? You’re making him look bad.
Since Oliver’s little talk I haven’t instigated any personal insults. In this thread you accused someone of being a member of NAMBLA.
Dude, cut Dennis some slack. That’s all he’s got.
MOH,
Paul_D accused me of being a practitioner of the act placing my nutsack in another person’s mouth, or vice versa. I don’t think my reply was any worse than what he said to me. Do you have anything to say to him? Or any one of about a thousand things Jaim has said to me? Or anyone else?
Paul_D accused me of being a practitioner of the act placing my nutsack in another person’s mouth, or vice versa.
Dennis, just say “teabagging.” Paul_D accused you of “teabagging.”
It’s truly amazing the lengths Dennis will go to avoid admitting a mistake. There’s a Richard Pryor routine in there: “Did you break that vase?…”
I didn’t make a mistake telling Paul_D that it was a bit perverted to post a picture of a little boy to prove his point about “tea bagging”, Indeed.
I’m not going to any lengths to keep from admitting anything; I’m just stating the obvious.
Yes you did Dennis. Yes you did.
What are you babbling about, J. Winnfield? You never say anything that makes sense.
Don’t take that as a personal attack, though.
Dennis, please get your own blog. You can run it any way you like, have your own stupid rules and standards, and whine to your heart’s content.
I recommend Blogger. It’s a lot easier than Wordpress so even you could probably handle it.
SQ,
After you get up off your fainting couch it will come as quite a shock to you that we are somewhat closer together on this subject then you will find comfortable.
“No, historically it has been about the ownership of women and the recognition of legal heirs for the transfer of property (and all of the rights that entails).”
‘
You’re almost correct but you just couldn’t help a little dig about ownership to take yourself off track. It’s not ownership of women but responsibility for women. While it will pain you to consider the biological imperative inherent in the built in tension between men and women, the spread your seed vs pick the best seed diacotomy leaves women and society at a bit of a disadvantage after the deed is done. With no outside force to urge responsibility, a man driven to spread his seed has no real reason to stick around and maintain the mother and child. Raising children alone has always been a tough row to hoe for women and there was a good chance society at large would be tasked with maintenence for both mother and child. Marriage forces the man to do the right thing, bringing some measure of security to both mother and child, releaving society from the tab, and giving the offspring a better shot at success. A dramatic example of this exists today with our underclass being over represented in families being raised by single mothers to the detriment of child, mother, and society.
Your second point about inheritence and the transfer of property is much closer to the mark. Marriage provides legitimacy to the offspring and helps to minimize a messy transfer of property and position upon the death of the man.
” And don’t feed us that BS about marriage being about procreation and providing stable homes for children, unless you are willing to (1) deny the right to marry to anyone who is infertile or past child bearing years, and (b) forbid divorce among couples with children.”
See the above regarding the abandonment of women, keeping society from being tasked with bastard maintence etc. etc. etc. Fertility was not a testable thing way back when but a woman being barren was sometimes grounds for annulment. Marriage past childrearing years really means past a woman’s childbearing years, men being fertile much longer than women, as you well know. Again marriage keeps the old crones that lived from being abandoned. Many women died in childbirth and it was not uncommon for men to have large families from multiple mothers. Often the prior children still needed mothering, serial marriages were a pragmatic solution that once again minimizes the costs to society.
“Not to mention the existence of thousands of gay and lesbian families which aren’t recognized under your antiquated, patrician definition of marriage.”
Actually we are talking about homosexual couples not families. That’s the big shortcoming of same sex unions, all sex/no kids. Adoption can bring children into the fold of a homosexual couple but that should be a case of last resort for the unfortunate orphan. A child learns from it’s parents. They provide the role models that teach a child how to manage as an adult. A kid’s best shot at learning normal coping mechanisms comes from having both a mother and father teaching them how the world works. At very best having a homosexual couple as parents muddles and confuses a child’s views and chances of a normal relationship for themselves.
“What we are talking about are the modern legal privileges that go along with marriage (which I think you know perfectly well, and just choose to ignore).”
Now we get to the crux of the matter. Homosexuals want the subsidies and courtesies extended by society to families. Which brings us back around to one of my earlier points about subsidizing one’s sexual partner. And original question, What civil right is being abridged by denying the rights and priviledges extended to traditional families to homosexual couples which are not families? No one raises a fuss about singles or expects society to subsidize them.
“And, perhaps even more importantly, the recognition by society that one’s loving, committed relationship is just as valid and just as worthy one’s neighbors.”
Interestingly enough what is perhaps most important to you is not the subsidy but the recognition or respect of society. Respect is earned, not created by legislation. The validity and worth of your relationship is a matter between you and your other half, not you and your neighbors.
“Jeez, you are a piece of work.”
Thank you, It’s hard work being the voice of reason here, often unappreciated, but I try my best.
Holy cow! Are they printing anthropology for kindergartners on the back of Froot Loops boxes these days?
Let us say, and why not, that it turns out that your parents, before you were born, had agreed that you would marry another woman instead. By happenstance, you managed to avoid that fate. However, the people of your state agreed that this marriage, which had a long and established tradition in many cultures, all the way back to the time of the prophets, and should be recognized. To wit, the state would force you to choose between celibacy, or a miserable marriage to someone whom you simply couldn’t love.
You might ask ‘What about my choice? I don’t love this woman, and I wish to love another, as everyone else does.”
And the answer you would receive is ‘Well, traditionally…” and then a recap of How Things Used To Be. It’s not actually clear whether the Way Things Used To Be is any better than The Reality We All Live In Now. But, we are guaranteed that this is how it should work. And to upset this would cause some untold damage to the marriages of thousands of people who neither know you that well, or would ever likely meet you. All they know, is you should marry this ugly chick, or else.
You will be told that the contract is sacred, that breaking it will bring ruin upon you. You will be threatened by strangers, denounced by priests and scorned by the law. The people of this state will basically have their thumb over a rather important aspect of your life. If you did buck them, and refuse the arranged marriage, then you still lose. Any other marriage wouldn’t be recognized, they say. Your decision would be nullified by the will of thousands of strangers that do not know you, but shun you all the same.
But, what about your civil rights? Surely you have some right to be able to marry a person you love, despite this contract? And you are basically told ‘no, you don’t’. The reasons vary, of course, some cite the sacred texts, other mention the damage to society, and still other will say ‘you just haven’t earned it yet’. Any family you raise will not be recognized, no matter how well you work at it, or how happy and successful you are. Your relationship would be unspoken, and you would be forced to dance through loopholes in the law to gain the basic rights you would have if you chose the woman you didn’t want.
Now, you can say ‘I see what you’re doing; you’re equating gay marriage with something totally different, and the analogy falls flat blah blah blah.’ And you would be right – no analogy will be perfect, which is the flaw of this sort of argument. I am pointing out that this analogy could be extended in other directions, say replacing an arranged marriage with inter-racial or inter-religious marriages, and the arguments against them would remain much the same with just a shift in words and emphasis.
Marriage forces the man to do the right thing, bringing some measure of security to both mother and child, releaving society from the tab, and giving the offspring a better shot at success.
In what universe? Certainly not this one.
Actually we are talking about homosexual couples not families. That’s the big shortcoming of same sex unions, all sex/no kids.
You’re ignorance is showing, oh Annoying One. Technology has passed you by. I am friends with two lesbian couples, together for literally decades, who are raising biological children as a family. Then there are the gay parents with children from a previous marriage, who, together with their partners, are the sole or primary care-givers of their children. There are literally thousands of children in this country who don’t have parents, who aren’t cute, white, healthy infants, and who are waiting for permanent homes. I would never deny one of these children a loving home just because the parents happen to be gay. Would you?
What civil right is being abridged by denying the rights and priviledges extended to traditional families to homosexual couples which are not families?
Hospital visitation
Inheritance
Social security survivor benefits (gays are tax paying citizens, you did realize that, right?)
Custody of children
Health insurance
And how about equal protection under the law, which you are usually so vocal in promoting?
The one nice thing about AO’s posts is that they summarize the conservative mindset in a nutshell. He really can’t come up with any reason to be against gay marriage, except the fact that he might be “subsidizing sodomy.” It’s all about teh sex, folks, never mind the fact that straight couples might occasionally engage in sodomy, too. Bill in Portland Maine said it best … it all comes down to the “ick” factor:
I won’t jump into your back and forth other than to remark on a couple of things:
“That’s the big shortcoming of same sex unions, all sex/no kids.”
Hilarious. You’ve obviously never met a gay family, but you certainly don’t think they exist so how could you, right?
Well, we do exist and the last thing we want is your respect. You don’t deserve it.
“The validity and worth of your relationship is a matter between you and your other half, not you and your neighbors.”
Right, so mind your own business and I’ll mind mine.
Yeesh. It’s 2009? Hard to tell sometimes.
Now go on with your regularly scheduled posting.
I should have said, “you don’t deserve our respect’ but I think that’s abundantly clear anyway.
Sorry, this homo was all out not loving his family and having sex all night while scheming to destroy the GOP ideal of American circa 1950 that really only existed on television anyway- because that’s how gays roll.
Thank you, It’s hard work being the voice of reason here, often unappreciated, but I try my best.
So the “voice of reason” believes that gay people can’t love?
Respect is earned, not created by legislation.
So gay people haven’t “earned” marriage? Who are you to decide that?
The validity and worth of your relationship is a matter between you and your other half, not you and your neighbors.
Odd, considering the neighbor seems to have no qualms hurting the gay couple for no reason.
A child learns from it’s parents. They provide the role models that teach a child how to manage as an adult.
Ignoring, of course, that a child can have role models other than their parents.
At very best having a homosexual couple as parents muddles and confuses a child’s views and chances of a normal relationship for themselves.
Of course, like a good conservative, you base this on absolutely nothing.
What civil right is being abridged by denying the rights and priviledges extended to traditional families to homosexual couples which are not families?
Hospital visitation rights, for one. Also, what about straight couples that aren’t families? What about adopted children, do they not “count”? God, Farris, just admit that you hate gay people and be done with it.
“Respect is earned, not created by legislation.”
Failing that, people’s prejudices are beaten out of them with legislation and education.
Reading your post AO, I couldn’t stop thinking of Ward Cleaver.